00328nas a2200097 4500008004100000245004400041210004400085300001400129100002600143856006100169 2006 eng d00aBoundaries and borders in Balkan Slavic0 aBoundaries and borders in Balkan Slavic a161–1731 aFriedman, Victor, А. uhttps://naum.slav.uni-sofia.bg/librislavici/friedman200600509nas a2200133 4500008004100000245007600041210006900117260004500186300001400231100002600245700002000271700002300291856006100314 2004 eng d00aLanguage planning and status in the Republic of Macedonia and in Kosovo0 aLanguage planning and status in the Republic of Macedonia and in aBloomington, IndianabSlavica Publishers a197–2311 aFriedman, Victor, А.1 aBugarski, Ranko1 aHawkesworth, Celia uhttps://naum.slav.uni-sofia.bg/librislavici/friedman200401226nas a2200145 4500008004100000245006100041210006000102300001200162490000700174520073200181653002400913653005600937100002600993856006101019 1992 eng d00aAspectual oppositions in Bulgarian, Albanian and Turkish0 aAspectual oppositions in Bulgarian Albanian and Turkish a33–380 v173 a
In translated Bulgarian, Albanian and Turkish examples lacking the expected correspondences of aorists and imperfects, either Turkish or Bulgarian has an imperfect where the other two have aorists. This is evidence that the imperfect is more marked in each language since a more marked form is less likely to correspond to another language’s counterpart. The noncorresponding imperfects denote sequential or inceptive activities, which contradicts the meaning of contemporaneousness suggested for Bulgarian and Albanian. Perhaps because it is Indo-European like Bulgarian but lacks a superordinate aspectual opposition like Turkish, Albanian is intermediate in using the aorist when one of the others has an imperfect.
10aContrastive Studies10aсъпоставителни изследвания1 aFriedman, Victor, А. uhttps://naum.slav.uni-sofia.bg/librislavici/friedman1992